The Surgical Correction of Pierre Robin Sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors present an outcomes analysis of mandibular distraction osteogenesis versus tongue-lip adhesion in the surgical treatment of Pierre Robin sequence. METHODS: A retrospective, 15-year, single-surgeon review was undertaken of all nonsyndromic neonates with Pierre Robin sequence treated with mandibular distraction osteogenesis (2004 to 2009; n = 24) or tongue-lip adhesion (1994 to 2004; n = 15). Outcomes included time of extubation, length of intensive care unit stay, incidence of tracheostomy, and surgical complications. Polysomnography data were collected 1 month and 1 year postoperatively. Sleep study data included changes in oxygen saturation and apnea-hypopnea index. RESULTS: There were no postprocedure tracheostomies in the mandibular distraction osteogenesis group and four tracheostomies in the tongue-lip adhesion group. The preoperative oxygen saturations were significantly lower in the mandibular distraction osteogenesis group compared with tongue-lip adhesion (76.5 percent versus 82 percent; p < 0.05). Preoperative apnea-hypopnea index was significantly higher in the mandibular distraction osteogenesis group compared with the tongue-lip adhesion group (47 versus 37.6; p < 0.05). Despite these preoperative differences, patients undergoing mandibular distraction osteogenesis demonstrated significantly higher oxygen saturation levels at 1 month (98.3 percent versus 87.5 percent; p < 0.05) and 1 year postoperatively (98.5 percent versus 89.2 percent; p < 0.05) and lower apnea-hypopnea index at 1 month (10.9 versus 21.6; p < 0.05) and 1 year postoperatively (2.5 versus 22.1; p < 0.05) compared with tongue-lip adhesion. Surgical complications were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In nonsyndromic patients with Pierre Robin sequence, mandibular distraction osteogenesis demonstrates superior outcome measures regarding oxygen saturation, apnea-hypopnea index, and incidence of tracheostomy compared with tongue-lip adhesion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".